Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator): Difference between revisions
→Far-Right/Transphobic: Reply |
→Anti-Transgender: Reply |
||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
Given his recent comments describing the trans movement as “the greatest evil our country faces” and that he is determined to “oppose it until his last breath,” as well as responding to claims that he was an anti-trans columnist by stating “really outrageous to call me an anti-trans columnist. I’m a podcaster.” Is it finally time to add “anti-transgender” to his opening paragraph? It’s the thing Walsh is most known for, and his activism against the community is much more vitriolic than someone like Graham Linehan who is described in his opening paragraph as anti-trans. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6011:4243:2000:4D2:2EC2:2B7F:8B2|2603:6011:4243:2000:4D2:2EC2:2B7F:8B2]] ([[User talk:2603:6011:4243:2000:4D2:2EC2:2B7F:8B2|talk]]) 00:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC) |
Given his recent comments describing the trans movement as “the greatest evil our country faces” and that he is determined to “oppose it until his last breath,” as well as responding to claims that he was an anti-trans columnist by stating “really outrageous to call me an anti-trans columnist. I’m a podcaster.” Is it finally time to add “anti-transgender” to his opening paragraph? It’s the thing Walsh is most known for, and his activism against the community is much more vitriolic than someone like Graham Linehan who is described in his opening paragraph as anti-trans. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6011:4243:2000:4D2:2EC2:2B7F:8B2|2603:6011:4243:2000:4D2:2EC2:2B7F:8B2]] ([[User talk:2603:6011:4243:2000:4D2:2EC2:2B7F:8B2|talk]]) 00:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:No because that wording implies he hates people who identify as trans. Rather, he hates the idea of transgenderism that has been pushed in society more and more today, the fact that such a concept exists. Walsh doesn't hate any person who believes they are transgender if they are living their lives normally and minding their own business. But he does have a disdain for people such as Dylan Mulvaney who promotes transgenderism and uses it as a marketing tactic for social media following (which influences children as a result). This would be the equivalent of saying someone who does not like the Islam religion, hates all Muslim people. [[Special:Contributions/142.186.88.120|142.186.88.120]] ([[User talk:142.186.88.120|talk]]) 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:57, 7 April 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matt Walsh (political commentator) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
||
Self-published sources of Walsh defending himself reliable?
Recently, @SteepAtticStairs made some contributions in which they added Walsh's "theocratic fascist" self-description being in jest and him defending his views on teenage pregnancy with self-published sources: WALSH: Yes, I am a Theocratic Fascist from The Daily Wire and Matt Walsh Reacts to Media Matters' Hit Piece on Him from YouTube. I think the second source is in line with WP:ABOUTSELF for the most part, while the first source is (presumably, and hopefully) written in jest about how Walsh would establish a theocratic dictatorship, but it likely is not as reliable because of that. I think the contributions improve the neutrality of the article if you discount the type of sources, but another concern of mine is how close we are to the threshold of this guideline from ABOUTSELF: "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." If at all possible, it probably is most beneficial if there are any third-party sources talking about Walsh defending himself. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting the discussion. I agree that we should consider WP:ABOUTSELF rules, and would add guidance in WP:PSTS and WP:INDY. Regarding "theocratic fascist", secondary RS in the article noting the label do not say he is being sarcastic,[1][2][3] and his essay is not a clear denial, so a compromise might note his "essay on the label" or perhaps "sarcastic essay on the label" without making a judgement in Wikivoice about the label itself. Llll5032 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think a marginally more reliable self-published source for the label being sarcastic is a YouTube video published to the DailyWire+ channel with the same name; in the intro, he explains himself much better:
- "It does say in my Twitter bio that I'm a theocratic fascist, well because a few months ago someone sent me a message, trying to insult me, and the message said: 'hey, y'know, you should put theocratic fascist in your Twitter bio because that's what you are.'"
- The rest of the video is bascially the Daily Wire essay verbatim. While it's entirely in the region of possibility he uses the label sarcastically to "trigger the libs", it's purely anecdotal and he could have easily made up the story. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- That YouTube video could be another source to add, but I do think the Daily Wire essay seems to state clearer (with the use of heavy sarcasm) that the "theocratic fascist" label is trolling. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps a short sentence after the label like "He has said he took the label from an opponent's insult'", while removing "sarcastic", could be neutral with no WP:OR interpretation? Llll5032 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would be fine with this. It would be more accurate, as it's clear he doesn't seriously identify himself as a theocratic fascist. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think changing it to that would be perfectly apt. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps a short sentence after the label like "He has said he took the label from an opponent's insult'", while removing "sarcastic", could be neutral with no WP:OR interpretation? Llll5032 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- That YouTube video could be another source to add, but I do think the Daily Wire essay seems to state clearer (with the use of heavy sarcasm) that the "theocratic fascist" label is trolling. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think the essay isn't worded as a clear denial, but I think if you "understand" the entirety of what Walsh wrote, I think it's clear he's being sarcastic / trolling. He writes
- "I suppose you can interpret that description in one of two ways: as an obviously sarcastic joke meant to make fun of the people who reflexively label me a “theocrat” and a “fascist” for my opinions, or as a completely literal and sincere statement without the slightest hint of irony or sarcasm."
- That seems to me to be a very clear indication that he is being sarcastic - he is making the former option he provides seem like the more reasonable conclusion.
- FULL DISCLOSURE for future conversations about my edits. I am personally biased towards Walsh - I do like the things he says and I listen to his podcast. However, I have tried to make my edits as neutral as possible, e.g. simply quoting him with the teenage pregnancy issue. I just think that I might be justified in making some edits, seeing as I listen to pretty much everything he puts out so I know when he might or might not be trolling. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- In my view, the entire "theocratic fascist" bit doesn't belong in this article if the sarcasm label is removed. Walsh is clearly being sarcastic (as mentioned above). Walsh and reliable sources that support him are unlikely to mention this, because to explain the joke is to ruin the joke. Even the citation currently in the article for the sarcasm label is a testament to Walsh continuing the bit. Reliable sources that don't support him are unlikely to mention this, because they can get away with ignoring the sarcasm (or feigning ignorance, as the case may be). I can only imagine that the 1930's Wikipedia article on Henny Youngman would have included a paragraph on how he really doesn't enjoy being with his wife. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- This makes sense. I think that adding the "theocratic fascist" bit to the Wikipedia article at all does exactly what Walsh intended for it to do - rile people up. This is exactly what trolling is, it's how Walsh operates. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- In my view, I think him owning the label after an opponent referred to him as one is telling enough he's not using it seriously, on top of the fact that most people wouldn't proudly declare themselves a part of an extreme political ideology, even if they may hold views that align with them. I can see your reasoning about how mentioning the label in the article is a product of Walsh's "trolling" commentary, but I think if we provide an explanation as to why he uses the label (whether or not use of the word "sarcastically" is used) in the first place it'd cancel out the "troll". I'm prepared to edit the article with the marginally more reliable source linked above if there aren't objections. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- In my view, the entire "theocratic fascist" bit doesn't belong in this article if the sarcasm label is removed. Walsh is clearly being sarcastic (as mentioned above). Walsh and reliable sources that support him are unlikely to mention this, because to explain the joke is to ruin the joke. Even the citation currently in the article for the sarcasm label is a testament to Walsh continuing the bit. Reliable sources that don't support him are unlikely to mention this, because they can get away with ignoring the sarcasm (or feigning ignorance, as the case may be). I can only imagine that the 1930's Wikipedia article on Henny Youngman would have included a paragraph on how he really doesn't enjoy being with his wife. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think a marginally more reliable self-published source for the label being sarcastic is a YouTube video published to the DailyWire+ channel with the same name; in the intro, he explains himself much better:
- Your primary ABOUTSELF concern is not "1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;"? Why in the world is that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well it is one of my concerns; I think that the second self-published source SteepAtticStairs used is in relative compliance with 1. That being said, it could easily be an example of the Motte-and-bailey fallacy, in which a person holds an extreme position when making assertions and then holds a more moderate position when the extreme position is challenged. The first source is very rickety in my opinion all around, even if it is true the label is sarcastic. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- How can an SPS being used to dispute a characterization in WP:RS ever not be unduly self serving? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, touché. As I said before, he may very well be taking a more moderate stance when defending his statements since his original comments were more extreme. At least from the quotation SteepAtticStairs used, Walsh never acknowledged the part about him saying that women 17-24 are the most fertile. I guess it could also be possible his views on it have mellowed since the early 2010s, but part of me doubts that. So it might be necessary to remove that section, or at least find a secondary source that quotes Walsh's response. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt that there would be any reliable secondary source that includes Walsh’s response. If that is the case, I’m not sure why we would remove Walsh’s response that was from his YouTube video. There’s no doubt that he was the one who said that defense, so why would we remove a quote undeniably from him? Is it a Wikipedia rule? SteepAtticStairs (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Typically, it's highly encouraged to use secondary sources rather than using primary sources, which are directly related to the subject. If you're curious, there's a whole page about discussing which sources are reliable and which are not: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Horse Eye's Black is arguing that his defense in the YouTube video is self-serving, which is in violation of the first criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF. One can presume that the average viewer of Matt Walsh may not be aware of his early career, nor opt to actively listen to opposition of him, so Walsh could twist what he originally said in order to seem less extreme (in other words, self-serving). SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ah - that makes a lot more sense. It is indeed certainly possible, and likely, that he would defend himself in a way that would make his previous comments sound less extreme than they were. I guess I just assumed Walsh had a "right" to defend himself, and his own defense should be added to the page. I can see now why Wikipedia discourages that, thanks for the explanation. SteepAtticStairs (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Typically, it's highly encouraged to use secondary sources rather than using primary sources, which are directly related to the subject. If you're curious, there's a whole page about discussing which sources are reliable and which are not: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Horse Eye's Black is arguing that his defense in the YouTube video is self-serving, which is in violation of the first criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF. One can presume that the average viewer of Matt Walsh may not be aware of his early career, nor opt to actively listen to opposition of him, so Walsh could twist what he originally said in order to seem less extreme (in other words, self-serving). SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt that there would be any reliable secondary source that includes Walsh’s response. If that is the case, I’m not sure why we would remove Walsh’s response that was from his YouTube video. There’s no doubt that he was the one who said that defense, so why would we remove a quote undeniably from him? Is it a Wikipedia rule? SteepAtticStairs (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, touché. As I said before, he may very well be taking a more moderate stance when defending his statements since his original comments were more extreme. At least from the quotation SteepAtticStairs used, Walsh never acknowledged the part about him saying that women 17-24 are the most fertile. I guess it could also be possible his views on it have mellowed since the early 2010s, but part of me doubts that. So it might be necessary to remove that section, or at least find a secondary source that quotes Walsh's response. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- How can an SPS being used to dispute a characterization in WP:RS ever not be unduly self serving? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well it is one of my concerns; I think that the second self-published source SteepAtticStairs used is in relative compliance with 1. That being said, it could easily be an example of the Motte-and-bailey fallacy, in which a person holds an extreme position when making assertions and then holds a more moderate position when the extreme position is challenged. The first source is very rickety in my opinion all around, even if it is true the label is sarcastic. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
transgender "health care"
Outright falsities at beginning of article: Mutilation of healthy body parts and drugs causing irreparable health issues is not "care". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.204.140 (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Matt's Pronouns
On Matt's official Facebook page, there is a statement of their pronouns being 'me/myself'.
While this could be seen as being said in jest, it could also be seen as a valid assertion. Therefore, until me states myself's pronouns officially somewhere else, I don't see any reason why the pronouns used in myself's article shouldn't reflect this. Bugfingers (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I highly doubt he uses those pronouns seriously. Looking at that message you linked as well as considering all the things he has said about transgender people and the surrounding LGBT community, it seems pretty obvious to me he is taking the piss in order to make fun of non-binary people. In a tweet replying to a TIME article that referred to someone with ey/eir pronouns, he said this, obviously to make fun of neopronouns and those who use them:
- "My pronouns are kwioaljfnaueakjnfkak/ealjnuaepasnfjnweounaljsnflajnelfnakjaf/ajnfoenfoiefnkjnfiuouenafef03910394 Please refer to me accordingly".
- In another tweet, he went on a tirade about neopronouns/choosing your pronouns, saying that:
- "Nobody has pronouns. You can't 'have' a pronoun any more than you have a preposition or an adverb. The concept doesn't make any sense. Pronouns are not things you can own. They aren't pets or accessories. They are parts of speech. That's it. You don't get to customize them."
- He also calls himself a "theocratic fascist" in his Twitter bio, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia treats the description as fact. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is refreshing to see that we can come to the conclusion that someone is speaking in jest without appealing to a reliable source or being charged with doing original research. I hope this continues, and even extends to topics that may already be in the article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- If I were to base my judgement purely off of WP:ABOUTSELF, the post Bugfingers linked would most likely be in violation of "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is refreshing to see that we can come to the conclusion that someone is speaking in jest without appealing to a reliable source or being charged with doing original research. I hope this continues, and even extends to topics that may already be in the article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Far-Right/Transphobic
Hi. I noticed that Matt Walsh isn't labelled as being Far-Right or Anti-LGBTQ. The page for Libs of TikTok which pushes the exact same rhetoric as Walsh, is described as such. Matt constantly spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories, labelling anybody who supports trans healthcare as "pedophiles" and has been cited several times by lawmakers who try to take away the rights of trans people. If "Far-Right" is too risky, I think Anti-LGBT or Transphobic should be fine since Walsh describes himself as that anyways. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Legitimate reply that isn't laced with unnecessary hate here: although his opposition to LGBT is mentioned in the intro section, it may not be inappropriate to refer to him as anti-LGBT or transphobic, given we have multiple reliable sources to back it up. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. I just don't see why the page acts as if him being Anti-Queer or Transphobic is left up in the air when he objectively is. He has even said he doesn't think adults should be able to transition let alone adolescents, and deliberately lies/uses extreme language to push his narrative which only harms trans folks. Including claiming that doctors perform mastectomies on pubescent children. He uses the exact same talking point that homophobes did 60 years ago. His work is referenced even over here in the UK by our prime minister who wants to take our rights to medical care aways. There is no doubt that he's a far-right extremist and should be labelled as such. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to dissect your statement for more clarity...
- "He has even said he doesn't think adults should be able to transition let alone adolescents, and deliberately lies/uses extreme language to push his narrative which only harms trans folks".
- I've seen many comments like these which assert/"prove" that Walsh is Anti-Queer/transphobic. However this is simply a speculated drawn conclusion. For example, what if I said I don't think children should be able to own a cell phone until 16 for health/psychological issues. Using your logic, it would be considered "ageist" or being hateful towards children under 16. You have to realize that Walsh holds these opinions because whether he is actually right or wrong, he is looking out for others and wants what's best for others (and society at large). There is 0 connection between believing adults shouldn't transition, and being hateful of transgender people. Similarly, if I told someone their lifelong passion of being a miner should be changed to something else because of the potential harms comes with being a miner, that doesn't mean I'm minerphobic or hate people who are miners. You may think an occupation and a gender identity is a false equivalency, but at the same time why *can't* the logic apply? People can still hate those who work in certain jobs. What about people who believe they are a different race? Would denial of someone's perceived race be trans(race)phobic? Until you can answer these, you cannot draw the conclusion not wanting adults to transition is inherently hateful.
- As well, "extreme language" = hyperbole, pretty much what every political commentator uses to some degree. And claiming his words "harm" is also nonsense unless you grant the premise humans who listen to Walsh are not autonomous beings with their own thought processes and simply take in what Walsh says as if they're robots.
- _____
- "Including claiming that doctors perform mastectomies on pubescent children."
- This is literally true, it has happened to 15-17 year olds (I would imagine 14 too but cannot confirm that), and how often it happens is one issue. But let's not pretend it has never happened.
- _____
- "There is no doubt that he's a far-right extremist and should be labelled as such."
- This is proof the overton window has shifted dramatically. 60 years ago, essentially everyone in the world would go against mainstreaming transgenderism, never mind gay marriage. Walsh simply has not conceded ground and holds the same beliefs mainstream conservatives held in the 2000's, which I suppose makes him a far-right extremist today. Also, if we are going to give Walsh such a label, what label would you give to those such as Alex Jones? Or Nick Fuentes? A far-far-right extremist? 69.157.77.228 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- "There is no doubt that he's a far-right extremist and should be labelled as such."
- I noticed that Matt Walsh has been labelled far-right on his page. I'm not sure if you were the one who added it but I feel that I should discuss this anyway. There are several issues with this statement and as such I would like to change the label to conservative or right-wing. There is very little to support the notion that Walsh is far-right. There are many defining features of far-right politics that Matt does not exhibit (these are from the Far-right politics article):
- Radical conservatism: It is true that he is a very traditional conservative, but the only way he can be labelled "far-right" was if he held views so abhorrent that almost no one else supports it (much like Hitler's fascist beliefs). This is far from the truth as his views are shared by millions around the country. As for the "radical" part, that is also not true as he has not actively incited any violence whatsoever. He has pushed for laws such as the prohibition of abortion and medical transitions on minors, but if this was enough to label him as "radical" then by this definition all activists would be far-left or far-right.
- Authoritarianism: He has labelled himself a "theocratic fascist" in his Twitter bio but it is clearly sarcastic. Other than that he has never supported any form of authoritarianism.
- Ultra-nationalism: He is not overly-nationalist, nor is he white supremacist. The only reason he is against BLM is because he claims that the United States is already racially equitable. He supports racial equality just as much as liberals do; he only has a different view of what that is.
- As for the idea that he is harming trans people because he wants to take away adolescents' ability to transition, that is plain false. He, much like many other conservatives, is concerned about non-adults who are not able to make such decisions, as well as understand the various risks and complications that come with it. He doesn't want to ban transitions because he hates trans people; he just wants them to make sure that they don't make the wrong choice. He is not harming trans people; "harming" them would be to have them arrested just for being trans.
- The source cited in the page points to a USA Today article that labels Walsh, but term "far-right" is used here in a hyperbolic manner just to portray Matt Walsh in a negative light. The writer doesn't mean far-right in the literal sense, but rather to call him a bad conservative. Maybe USA Today has no issue with calling him that, but Wikipedia should be totally impartial.
- Therefore, no, Matt Walsh is not objectively far-right. Just because you don't like him does not make him a far-right extremist. Let me know if I made any mistakes and if I haven't I'll change the page back to right-wing. Cheeselover 405 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, most of the sources refer to Walsh as either "right-wing" or "conservative", while only a small number refer to him as "far-right" and even less so "alt-right". So I think for the sake of avoiding a potentially skewed, or worse a libelous intro section it would be safer to call him right-wing for now, and this is coming from a user who does not like Walsh nor his views. If in the future the RSs look at him much more negatively, we could then change his political affiliation accordingly.
- Judging by your reply, you would probably also object to the anti-LGBT/anti-trans label, yes? However, I do not see an issue with that being in the article's intro, as much of his modern prominence is from his vocal opposition of the transgender community's practices and the LGBT community as a whole: a major chunk of this article is dedicated to his views and controversies surrounding his commentary on transgender people, and many of the reliable sources used do refer to him as being anti-trans/anti-LGBT/transphobic. Your arbitrary definition of what "harm" is does not change whether Walsh's commentary is harmful to the transgender community (and for the record, it more likely than not is harmful). You can claim profusely that his commentary is out of "concern", but we go by what the most reliable sources say about Walsh and his commentary, not what our personal interpretations say. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- A reminder that labels for someone's political views are based on public consensus about what those labels mean, and not your personal political biases causing you to become upset over specific labels. Someone who is hostile to the goals of a civil rights movement is against that civil rights movement. Our goal as editors is to ensure the most accurate information possible based on available sources that describe someone's views, actions, and political goals and ambitions, not to be oversensitive about specific labels. See Be bold, but not reckless. Many of your statements including your definition of "radical conservatism" are unsourced prescriptive statements about how we "should" define a specific term, not how it is defined in the current political space. On contentious topics like this, it is important to maintain WP:NPOV. AMRSetsunai (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. I just don't see why the page acts as if him being Anti-Queer or Transphobic is left up in the air when he objectively is. He has even said he doesn't think adults should be able to transition let alone adolescents, and deliberately lies/uses extreme language to push his narrative which only harms trans folks. Including claiming that doctors perform mastectomies on pubescent children. He uses the exact same talking point that homophobes did 60 years ago. His work is referenced even over here in the UK by our prime minister who wants to take our rights to medical care aways. There is no doubt that he's a far-right extremist and should be labelled as such. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have not yet removed the recently added "anti-LGBT" label from the first sentence, but I have doubts that reliable sources use the specific description "
commonly
" enough to satisfy the requirement in WP:BLPSTYLE:"Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."
Some of his actions have been described clearly as anti-trans, but do many sources describe him as "anti-LGBT"? Llll5032 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)- While I do not disagree with the label, the sources don't seem to back it up well: The Houston Chronicles article Weirdarpeggi cited (which I had to view through the Internet Archive since the live link gives me an impassible subscription popup) describes Walsh as an "anti-trans activist", but not anti-LGBT. The NBC News article cited does contain the phrase "Anti-LGBTQ" to refer to the contents of post-Musk Twitter in general, but doesn't specifically describe Walsh as such. The Mashable citation does describe Walsh as "Anti-trans" but not anti-LGBT. If we are going to keep an anti- label it might be safer to use "anti-trans" in this case. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are you aware of the sources I pointed to previously, in this diff? I don't see any problems with anti-LGBT(Q), based on the available sources. Newimpartial (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, I was not aware of this. I was pointing out that the sources Weirdarpeggi cited didn't necessarily back up the claim of him being anti-LGBT, I wasn't arguing that he wasn't. Given your sources plus the other sources used throughout the article to describe his views, the claim would probably be more sound. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because the claim could be contentious, including refquotes in the citations would be warranted. Llll5032 (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, I was not aware of this. I was pointing out that the sources Weirdarpeggi cited didn't necessarily back up the claim of him being anti-LGBT, I wasn't arguing that he wasn't. Given your sources plus the other sources used throughout the article to describe his views, the claim would probably be more sound. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are you aware of the sources I pointed to previously, in this diff? I don't see any problems with anti-LGBT(Q), based on the available sources. Newimpartial (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to concur with Llll5032's analysis. Describing him as "anti-LGBT" should constitute a contentious label and should only be done with a predominance of RS support for the label, and that does not appear to be the case here. There is no need to cram this label into the first sentence for a reader to understand his stances against certain LGBT issues and such. It could also constitute WP:LEADCLUTTER I may add Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree to re-including it in some form if WP:BESTSOURCES are cited carefully with refquotes (WP:FOOTQUOTE) and if no RS disputes the claim. Llll5032 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- While I do not disagree with the label, the sources don't seem to back it up well: The Houston Chronicles article Weirdarpeggi cited (which I had to view through the Internet Archive since the live link gives me an impassible subscription popup) describes Walsh as an "anti-trans activist", but not anti-LGBT. The NBC News article cited does contain the phrase "Anti-LGBTQ" to refer to the contents of post-Musk Twitter in general, but doesn't specifically describe Walsh as such. The Mashable citation does describe Walsh as "Anti-trans" but not anti-LGBT. If we are going to keep an anti- label it might be safer to use "anti-trans" in this case. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Does anyone have any evidence of him being anti-LGBT, or is he just anti-transgenderism? Might be useful to make a clear distinction there, "anti-LGBT" can mean one of many things, many of which Matt seems to not be. bree Breeboi 23:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Transgenderism" is neither a word nor a concept. He has made statements on his talk show and Twitter promoting the restriction of transgender healthcare, so he's certainly anti-healthcare and civil rights. AMRSetsunai (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Transgenderism isn't word or concept because language is defined by those who use it, and in this case you personally have chosen not to believe it exists, which is fine - "transphobia" and "cisgender" are also not words to many people. bree Breeboi 20:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Being anti-transgender is being anti-LGBT. That's what the T is and it is a subcommunity of the larger queer community. However, if you are looking for a specific example of non-trans anti-LGBT activity, he is very anti-drag, which is not an explicit trans event. Many drag queens are in actuality gay men, so it would follow that being anti-drag (An opinion he stated after the Club Q shooting in November 2022 and repeatedly since) would be an example of being anti-gay. There is also his statements on the sexual abuse in the Catholic church being not a problem with the church, but with gay priests. Which is also a very explicit anti-gay statement. 162.244.194.226 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Saying someone is "anti-LGBT" is not a helpful descriptor because one of the letters refers to something completely different than the other three letters. The LGB is referring to sexual orientation whilst the T is referring to the belief that one can change their gender. There are people and governments that are anti-LGB but more tolerant towards transgenderism (like Iran), and people who are obviously anti-transgenderism but not explicitly anti-LGB (like Matt). bree Breeboi 20:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- He's pretty openly opposed to gay marriage and has been for a long time. 108.169.202.88 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Transgenderism" is neither a word nor a concept. He has made statements on his talk show and Twitter promoting the restriction of transgender healthcare, so he's certainly anti-healthcare and civil rights. AMRSetsunai (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
explanation for removed hate speech paragraph that isn’t relevant to the above Dronebogus (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Teen Pregnancy
Matt wasn't voicing his support for child marriage he was merely stating a fact that people used to marry young, he has stated this fact numerous times before. The article is trying to make it seem as though Matt is supportive of teen marriage, when this simply is not the case at all. The section about teen pregnancy should be rewritten to include this fact. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn’t even mention child marriage in that section so I have no idea what you’re talking about. “He was merely stating a fact” is a common phrase used for people in support of Matt Walsh and does not follow WP:NPOV. The article is also not attempting to make it seem like Walsh is “supporting teen marriage” because it does not even mention “teen marriage” in the first place.
- Judging from what I read in the article, the section is simply documenting what he said, how people reacted to it, and how he responded. It doesn’t seem to me that it requires a rewrite at all, and your biased opinion on this subject does not follow WP:NPOV. B3251 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Anti-Transgender
Given his recent comments describing the trans movement as “the greatest evil our country faces” and that he is determined to “oppose it until his last breath,” as well as responding to claims that he was an anti-trans columnist by stating “really outrageous to call me an anti-trans columnist. I’m a podcaster.” Is it finally time to add “anti-transgender” to his opening paragraph? It’s the thing Walsh is most known for, and his activism against the community is much more vitriolic than someone like Graham Linehan who is described in his opening paragraph as anti-trans. 2603:6011:4243:2000:4D2:2EC2:2B7F:8B2 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- No because that wording implies he hates people who identify as trans. Rather, he hates the idea of transgenderism that has been pushed in society more and more today, the fact that such a concept exists. Walsh doesn't hate any person who believes they are transgender if they are living their lives normally and minding their own business. But he does have a disdain for people such as Dylan Mulvaney who promotes transgenderism and uses it as a marketing tactic for social media following (which influences children as a result). This would be the equivalent of saying someone who does not like the Islam religion, hates all Muslim people. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Conservatism articles
- Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press